Subject: Re: CMU CL vs. CLISP? From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 1999/07/26 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3141969146012605@naggum.no> * bernardp@cli.di.unipi.it (Pierpaolo Bernardi) | I know this. I thought that the original comment said that the compiler | didn't obeyed inline declarations. Maybe I have misread. that may be what he meant, but he said "doesn't grok inline functions". since it is easy to misunderstand this (watch what people have taken pretty clear statements to mean in here recently) to mean that Allegro CL doesn't inline systems functions, either, I thought it was worth pointing out. as a side note, NOTINLINE declarations are of course honored. | If a programmer writes bad code, is that programmer's problem. He should | not blame the lisp implementation he's using. sigh. the exact same argument can be used about programming languages. it seems you go out of your way to refuse to understand the issue in favor of defending CLISP, so I give up, but will just make a mental note that CLISP _still_ needs defending by people who refuse to listen to criticism, like it has in the past. | You are wrong. I don't mean this, and I can't see how you can conclude | that I mean this from what I have written. it's a pretty obvious conclusion from your silly refusal to understand the criticism and crack jokes about a serious concern. #:Erik -- suppose we blasted all politicians into space. would the SETI project find even one of them?